A Critique of the “Emerging Church” Movement

The term “emerging church” identifies a loose collection of individuals from both Evangelical and Liberal Christians traditions who want to go beyond current ideological divisions between the two groups. They tend to be “postmodern” (or “ultramodern,” as I prefer to say), and are often willing to place all Christian doctrines as contingent and changeable given sufficient dialogue between Christians and between Christians, adherents of other religions, and agnostics/atheists. In a way they are radically individualistic, holding the Kierkegaardian view that people must find their own path to Christian faith. However, many also focus on small groups and house churches in order to build community. They believe that worship styles must adapt to the current chaotic postmodern world. Many also tend toward socialism or social democratic liberalism, which they include under “social justice,” though many emerging church adherents participate in projects to better their communities. They emphasize spirituality and spiritual formation, using an eclectic approach with resources from different Christian (and sometimes non-Christian) traditions.

Although my focus will be on critiquing the movement, I first will focus on positives. A major strength of the emerging church movement is its emphasis on spiritual formation. In the past, churches have de facto ignored spiritual development, and seminary training was intellectualistic with little room for developing spirituality. Although the New Testament, particularly the Pauline letters, emphasize all of a Christian’s life as part of spirituality, surely there is room for prayer, meditation, and other forms that help draw a person closer to God in his whole being, not just in his head. Good spiritual formation should help in moral development, including the habituation in good actions that leads to moral virtue.

Another positive is the works of mercy performed in communities by Christians in the emerging church. They put their labor where their mouth is, and work at homeless shelters, at educational programs for disadvantaged youth, and for programs trying to transform crime-ridden communities into communities of virtue.

There are a number of theological difficulties, however, with the emerging church movement. First, the theology is amorphous, varying widely fro individual to individual. There may be a loose unity of thought, but even then there lacks a commitment to the finality of any dogmas the church has pronounced. Influenced by the epistemological relativism of postmodern thought, these Christians flounder about as they seek their own personal theologies. How far a person drifts from traditional orthodox Christianity is left up to the individual. There is no firm theological ground on which a person can stand. What if someone, in his personal journey, denies the bodily resurrection of Christ or the Virgin Birth? What if someone challenges traditional sexual ethics on marriage, which has already been tried by some emerging church members, including scholars who have influence on young people? If such conclusions are part of one’s “personal jouney,” do they apply to others? If so, this is inconsistent; if a person denies consistency as an epistemological norm, there is no room for further discussion. The Christian who accepts the bodily resurrection of Christ, is on the postmodernist account of knowledge and belief, no better off than the person who denies it. There is no metanarrative, no “Truth” with a capital “T,” The result is theological chaos, and William Butler Yeats cry, “the cenre cannot hold” becomes reality. Even spiritual formation, rather than using approaches in one tradition that can only be adequately understood within that tradition, takes A from the Eastern Orthodox, B from the Roman Catholics, C from the Baptists, and so forth, to some up with suggestions for members to find their individual methods of spiritual formation. The loosening of tradition to the point that it has no meaning can only lead to significant numbers of Christians leaving the faith and turning to Buddhism, Hinduism, or some other non-Christian religion. Others may turn to Humanism. What could be wrong with that on the emerging church’s conception of truth?

Of least importance, but deserving to be mentioned, is the political naivety of the emerging church movement. It assumes that the best way to gain “social justice” is by a socialistic or left-wing social-democratic system of government and economics. “Social justice” is often considered to be synonymous with “socialism.” This view ignores other alternatives to the greedy corporatism dominating America – examples include redistributionism what encourages more local ownership of property or agrarianism. Usually the best efforts to aid communities are small scale, within an individual community, where those who help are the residents or know the residents well. The Roman Catholic principle of subsidiarity surely applies here.

Overall, I believe the emerging church movement is more of a negative rather than a positive for Christianity. A creative recovery of tradition is a better alternative to the individualistic theological chaos of the emerging church movement.

Share this:

Like this:

Related

Amos 8:11-12
11 ¶Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord:
12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it.

According to the Pew Research Center, “unaffiliated” is the fastest growing religion in the U.S. When Obama took office in 2008, about 13% of American claimed no religious affiliation, however Pew’s most recent survey estimates that these individuals now comprise approximately 20% of the population. At their present rate of growth, American’s claiming any religious affiliation will become a minority by 2050. While the unaffiliated category includes both atheists and agnostics, the overwhelming majority are simply un-churched.

Various studies investigating this group provide inconsistent and conflicting explanations for their growth. The secular hypothesis asserts that as the average level of education increases in a country, the less religious it becomes. However, these models historically have tended to be Euro-centric. More contemporary models that take urbanization, political movements, and economics into account indicate that a liberal education contributes much less to secularism than early models suggested, although still a significant factor. Surprisingly, a couple of studies focussing on the western U.S. in the late 1980s and early 1990s suggested that post-secondary education incrementally increased regular church attendance, and other religious indicators such as frequency of prayers, church donations, and volunteerism among certain Christian sects. Interestingly, these indicators continued to increase for male congregants for each year of postgraduate study, but precipitously declined for female congregants. Although there have been several attempts to replicate these studies, none have been as expansive or methodologically rigorous, despite being largely complementary.

As far as the “emerging church” movement is concerned, it is yet another generation of people trying to re-invent the wheel or a better mousetrap. Besides their rejection of trinitarian doctrine, Unitarian churches are renowned for their relaxed doctrine and civic liberalism. Bahá’ísm is essentially Unitarianism’s Islamic counterpart.

To those who seek a form of Christian spirituality without the personal rigor of living by Christian doctrines, I wish for you to ponder the words of Jeffery R. Holland, a modern Apostle:

“Sadly enough, my young friends, it is a characteristic of our age that if people want any gods at all, they want them to be gods who do not demand much, comfortable gods, smooth gods who not only don’t rock the boat but don’t even row it, gods who pat us on the head, make us giggle, then tell us to run along and pick marigolds.
Talk about man creating God in his own image! Sometimes—and this seems the greatest irony of all—these folks invoke the name of Jesus as one who was this kind of “comfortable” God. Really? He who said not only should we not break commandments, but we should not even think about breaking them. And if we do think about breaking them, we have already broken them in our heart. Does that sound like “comfortable” doctrine, easy on the ear and popular down at the village love-in?
And what of those who just want to look at sin or touch it from a distance? Jesus said with a flash, if your eye offends you, pluck it out. If your hand offends you, cut it off. “I came not to [bring] peace, but a sword,” He warned those who thought He spoke only soothing platitudes. No wonder that, sermon after sermon, the local communities “pray[ed] him to depart out of their coasts.” No wonder, miracle after miracle, His power was attributed not to God but to the devil. It is obvious that the bumper sticker question “What would Jesus do?” will not always bring a popular response.
At the zenith of His mortal ministry, Jesus said, “Love one another, as I have loved you.” To make certain they understood exactly what kind of love that was, He said, “If ye love me, keep my commandments” and “whosoever … shall break one of [the] least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be … the least in the kingdom of heaven.” Christlike love is the greatest need we have on this planet in part because righteousness was always supposed to accompany it. So if love is to be our watchword, as it must be, then by the word of Him who is love personified, we must forsake transgression and any hint of advocacy for it in others. Jesus clearly understood what many in our modern culture seem to forget: that there is a crucial difference between the commandment to forgive sin (which He had an infinite capacity to do) and the warning against condoning it (which He never ever did even once).
Friends, especially my young friends, take heart. Pure Christlike love flowing from true righteousness can change the world. I testify that the true and living gospel of Jesus Christ is on the earth and you are members of His true and living Church, trying to share it. I bear witness of that gospel and that Church, with a particular witness of restored priesthood keys which unlock the power and efficacy of saving ordinances. I am more certain that those keys have been restored and that those ordinances are once again available through The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints than I am certain I stand before you at this pulpit and you sit before me in this conference.
Be strong. Live the gospel faithfully even if others around you don’t live it at all. Defend your beliefs with courtesy and with compassion, but defend them. A long history of inspired voices, including those you will hear in this conference and the voice you just heard in the person of President Thomas S. Monson, point you toward the path of Christian discipleship. It is a strait path, and it is a narrow path without a great deal of latitude at some points, but it can be thrillingly and successfully traveled, “with … steadfastness in Christ, … a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men.” In courageously pursuing such a course, you will forge unshakable faith, you will find safety against ill winds that blow, even shafts in the whirlwind, and you will feel the rock-like strength of our Redeemer, upon whom if you build your unflagging discipleship, you cannot fall. In the sacred name of Jesus Christ, amen.”

There’s a missing argument in the post that I’d appreciate your clarifying and/or expanding. When you write, “What if someone, in his personal journey, denies the bodily resurrection of Christ or the Virgin Birth? What if someone challenges traditional sexual ethics on marriage, which has already been tried by some emerging church members, including scholars who have influence on young people? If such conclusions are part of one’s “personal jouney,” do they apply to others? If so, this is inconsistent.” Inconsistent with what, exactly?

I believe that one who upholds the notion of a Virgin Birth and the resurrection of Christ as part of one’s “personal journey” would be susceptible to the “inconsistency” complaint just as much as the ultramodern. On your view taken wholesale, it seems that the person who upholds orthodox beliefs would be inconsistent with the person who does not. Even a Jew or a Muslim, independent of the ultramodern, would deny orthodox claims. Orthodox personal beliefs would be inconsistent with those beliefs of people who deny orthodoxy. If that is true, however, then it’s difficult to see why orthodox believers would not be just as bad off as the ultramoderns.

For your complaint about ultramoderns to be convincing, we’re going to need a principled way of distinguishing between the personal beliefs of orthodox believers and non-orthodox believers (i.e., not just ultramoderns). Of course, you can’t rely upon the notion that the personal beliefs of orthodox believers is consistent with orthodoxy. That would be to beg the question against the personal beliefs of the non-orthodox believer.

A second way to defend your view, I suppose, is to deny that the personal beliefs of orthodox believers are not personal at all. They’re shared. Given that they’re shared with other orthodox believers, personal beliefs, in the way you’ve construed them in the post, is not what orthodox believers uphold. That can’t be the right way to argue, either. The non-orthodox believer could say the same thing in response to your argument. Their so-called personal beliefs are just beliefs shared among those people who do not uphold orthodox beliefs.

What seems to follow then from your argument above is: The orthodox person is just as inconsistent as the ultramodern.

Of course, you would like to deny that, but I fail to see the argument because it’s missing from your post. Fill it in.

Also, what lurks beneath your post is an argument supporting religious exclusivism. I’d like to see your argument for that view more perspicuously written, too.

Christianity seem broken to me. Somewhere I read there were almost one hundred million Christian Zionists in America. That figure could be wildly inaccurate? The Catholic Church seems to be putting Judaism on a level with Christianity. I guess Judaism is a religion–but surely a primitive one. I see no connection between Yahweh and the God of Jesus and the New Testament. Only an accidental one. Jesus could have lived in Greece. The Old Testament seems mostly a book about a primitive tribal people and a God without ethics! Wild tales and not moral ones. Compared to the Upanishads not really spiritual or edifying. Like lots of TV. I don’t know what the case with homosexuals should be. Americans are far more concerned with the feelings of potentially gay children than the children in Gaza being killed, maimed, wounded. Of course everyone is afraid of the big bad word anti-Semitism. I wonder if present behavior by Israel is a clue as to why Jews have been persecuted? Then there is usury. C.S.Lewis had his doubts. I guess if you like banks and investment firms usury is good. It helps if you are doing well financially. So, given the worlds shall we say famous relgions I am not sure why a person would chose Christianity with its labyrinthine theology and dogmas. Perhaps Buddhism which straightforwardly encourages compassion and treating others well. You might find that in Christianity if you chose the right brand; not likely in Judaism. I do not know about Islam as I know few Muslims. Hindus are a mixed bunch. The best are wonderful. Etc.

The Hebrew Bible has to be understood in context–the Israelites were a tribal culture with a strong belief in community solidarity–only in the later prophets do we see hints of respect for the individual, say in Ezekiel. The New Testament God is not as different from Yahweh as people think–Jesus himself talked much more about hell than St. Paul, and in the book of Acts God struck Ananias and Sapphira dead for lying about the amount of money they gave to the church. The book of Revelation is a book that says that God will wreak bloody vengeance on the Roman persecutors of Christians. As for usury, I don’t care for the idea of charging money for money–pre-World War II in small towns stores would offer credit at no interest to customers. Getting rid of usury would imply a fundamental reconstruction of the world economy, and that is something that if done cold turkey would probably lead to economic collapse. If there was the collective will to end usury, there would have to be more gradual structural changes over time–and a more virtuous populace!

Joe, I do not believe that orthodox beliefs should be part of one’s “personal journey” since I am not that individualistic concerning Christianity. I believe, by faith, I admit, that the Holy Spirit, through creeds, councils, scripture, and tradition, has preserved truth and that modern attempts to deny key doctrines that oppose church teachings are false. To me, liberal Roman Catholics should leave and go to the Episcopal Church, which has a Catholic-like service anyway–it would be a better path than trying to subvert the tradition of the RC Church from within. Being in the Anglican Catholic Church, I don’t have to worry about that–the Bishop would handle anyone openly teaching heresy. But I can’t answer your questions from an Enlightenment-based “neutral” standpoint, if such is possible. To make a case for traditional Catholicism involves defending an entire world view and would take a lifetime of argument to explore–Peter Kreeft has written some basic materials that are quite good.

I will have to differ with you on Yahweh who strikes me as fairly crude and violent God. Ideal though for a state like Israel. Plenty of precedent in the Old Testament for genocide and destruction as in Gaza. Supplied with money and bombs by the USA and protected from any international legal consequences.
It was an angel that stopped Abraham from killing his son. Was this one of the angels that were later to be “fallen angels”. I certainly see no reason for Yahweh to stop Abraham. The nation of Israel seems very much in harmony with Old Testament values. How Christians can embrace Israel is a real mystery and perhaps a sign of mental illness! Fortunately Christianity, Islam and Judaism are not the only religions on this planet. All three seem to attract violence. For the US Senate to unanimously support Israel’s genocide of the Gazans they had to know the Christian Churches were behind them. This is a scandal to me. There is no explaining or excusing it. Any way we now have the Pope claiming that Judaism is just as good a road to heaven as Christianity, so when the Rabbis cry out for the slaughter of Palestinian children what are we to think? Personally I think the West has so degraded itself through its wars that the nations are all somewhat psychotic now days. The human race is rushing to some kind of specie’s suicide. And according to MSM it is all the fault of Russia!? No, I see Jesus as the accidental Jew or Israelite; it was the already bad karma of the West that led to his being born in Israel rather than in Greece among a far more developed peoples. I like the Book Of Ruth but that is about it. Victor Hugo wrote a great poem based on that story. Proust called it the most beautiful poem of the 19th century. No one gets murdered which is nice for change.

The Pope’s comment concerning Judaism surprises me if he worded it exactly the way you expressed it. Generally Christian inclusivism in the Roman Catholic tradition has been understood as Karl Rahner did–that those who follow their own religion via their conscience may be saved due to Christ without necessarily understanding the source of their salvation. I doubt that, other than Orthodox Judaism, Judaism is as much a religion as an ethnic group–many Reformed and “Conservative” Jews are atheists or agnostics–not all, but quite a few. Israel was founded by secular agnostic European Jews. Personally I’d rather we stayed the hell out of the Middle East entirely–various groups have fought there for over 5000 years, and that fighting will never end. Let the Jews and Arabs settle the mess themselves.

Unfortunately the exact quote has slipped away somewhere at Google. But something similar in this interview: “VATICAN CITY (RNS) Underscoring the close ties between Christianity and Judaism and calling Holocaust denial “madness,” Pope Francis told an interviewer that “inside every Christian is a Jew.” http://www.religionnews.com/2014/06/13/pope-francis-inside-every-christian-jew/
At a minimum rather bad timing given the Gaza event. My thinking is just the opposite as I see Judaism as an accidental property of Christianity and a very misleading one. How often a neighbor lady has called me on the phone worked up by something she has found in the OT, e.g. Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live! I have encouraged her to read the NT and forget the OT to no avail. The OT is full of barbarism. I can not recall her name but the woman who pretends to be a protitute so her deceased husband’s brother will impregnate her and have to marry her as was the custom then. He is already to kill her when she reveals the item he paid her with! This goes beyond abortion including the mother as well. No, inside me was never a Jew. I have had two very good Jewish friends so I know what “my inner Jew” would be like. And no, the Pope is degrading himself by making these ridiculous and nonsensical statements. Pop psychology? In any case one might then ask what is inside every Jew? And then inside that and so on until to be PC we arrive at a semian. I thought the Kingdom of God was inside every Christian? No, I think I am correct that the OT clung on to the teachings of Christ sort as parasites and dangerously so. Jesus teachings are very Eastern as a matter of fact. Certainly Hindus think so and regard him very highly. I see not an inkling of Jesus in the OT.
“Jews find no foundation in the scriptures for such a belief [ the messiah will be divine] about the messiah. Passages viewed by Christians as indicating a divine messiah (such as the suffering servant of Isaiah 53) are viewed by Jews as speaking of the people of Israel.” http://www.religionfacts.com/judaism/beliefs/messiah.htm Since it is their book in their language I think we should accept that. Are Christians guilty of cultural appropriation? Personally I think Zionists have mesmerized people with weak minds and apparently have successfully pressured the Pope into making all sorts of conciliatory remarks while Gaza burns. As for Holocaust denial I think there is a place for revisionism as with all history. If any divergence from the gospel truth of Holocaust is Holocaust denial then he is wrong on this one too. I think especially academics need to fight for academic freedom which I see as almost lost due to gov and corporations. Meanwhile a greedy, spineless and uneducated Congress supports Israel. Do they not know that it is the occupied who hold the right to attempt to expel the occupier–or do they think that was only during WWII in places like France? So much ignorance and now even a Pope who is terribly PC and adores the Jews while they terroize the Palestinians. Sorry if I have engaged in a tirade but lately . . . all this violence across the world and Russia? the source of it all? LOL

A second pertinent question: Why is the Pope so keen on Judaism when for most the Talmud is their Torah and reviles Christ, his mother and Christianity? In Israel Christians have a hard time! I can think of quite a number of Hindu sages of high repute who regard Christ as an incarnation of God. Why does the Pope not talk about the “inner Hindu” or the “inner Buddhist”. In the case of Hinduism it is far more ancient than Judaism and the Vedas went all over the ancient world including Europe. Consider Schopenhauer who considered the Upanishads as the most profitable reading and that they were consolation of his life and would be the consolation of his death. It would be better to have an “inner Schopenhauer” if it came to it. [I see you are now moderating comments. I hope mine have not gotten out of bounds in your opinion. I fear the Gaza event plus Syria plus Easten Ukraine has created a lot of public turmoil and now the situation for Christians in Iraq as well. But no one seems to care these days about the persecution of Christians across the world.]